BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rjsterry

Robert88 wrote:

So it wasn't thrown out because Johnston's claim was ok, it was thrown out simply because politicians are allowed to lie and calling them out on it is 'vexatious'.

He was repeatedly called out on it, by various people including apolitical organisations; even on national television inside the actual bus. It's not even the most important lie that he told.

But lying is not a crime. It was a heck of a leap to claim one numerically inaccurate (but qualitatively true) statement amounted to misconduct in public office.

tailwindhome

It's going to be quite a moment in British politics when Boris Johnson brings May's withdrawal bill back to the House.

shortfall

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

https://order-order.com/2019/06/07/private-prosecution-boris-thrown-high-court/

Update on Boris private prosection.

I didn't know the definition: "Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary."

It seems there is no legal remedy if your political opponent just lies. That could be a good or bad thing.

The court took 5 minutes to quash the previous judges decision. At least Marcus Ball got some nice accommodation and a few judo lessons out if it.

I'd have more time for your argument if you actually said what you thought was wrong with the case rather than just bitching about expenses.

I think this has been discussed at length previously in this thread. I thought it was a politically motivated action designed to thwart Brexit. I've already stated that I don't like Boris Johnson and don't think him a fit and proper person to be PM

Fair enough, but why bring it up again. I agree it's a politically motivated action, but the fact that the person bringing the action spent some of his crowdfunding on living expenses (and has been quite open about it) is irrelevant to the merits of the action.

I only mentioned it because I got absolutely anhialated for suggesting it was a politically motivated action. The expenses thing was open to interpretation. If you believed in his cause you may have thought it was reasonable, if like me you thought his action was nothing to do with altruism and making politics honest but just a vexatious action to try and thwart Brexit then it looked like he was taking the p1ss

rjsterry

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

https://order-order.com/2019/06/07/private-prosecution-boris-thrown-high-court/

Update on Boris private prosection.

I didn't know the definition: "Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary."

It seems there is no legal remedy if your political opponent just lies. That could be a good or bad thing.

The court took 5 minutes to quash the previous judges decision. At least Marcus Ball got some nice accommodation and a few judo lessons out if it.

I'd have more time for your argument if you actually said what you thought was wrong with the case rather than just bitching about expenses.

I think this has been discussed at length previously in this thread. I thought it was a politically motivated action designed to thwart Brexit. I've already stated that I don't like Boris Johnson and don't think him a fit and proper person to be PM

Fair enough, but why bring it up again. I agree it's a politically motivated action, but the fact that the person bringing the action spent some of his crowdfunding on living expenses (and has been quite open about it) is irrelevant to the merits of the action.

I only mentioned it because of got absolutely anhialated for suggesting it was a politically motivated action. The expenses thing was open to interpretation. If you believed in his cause you may have thought it was reasonable, if like me you thought his action was nothing to do with altruism and making politics honest but just a vexatious action to try and thwart Brexit then it looked like he was taking the p1ss

A few people disagreed with you, that's all. The action being vexatious and Ball wanting to thwart Brexit are two different things. The former means the case was deemed to be an attempt to use the law to make a personal attack on Johnson. I don't see the relevance of Ball's views on Brexit to the bigger question of whether politicians can be legally held to account for campaign slogans.
Regardless of his motivation, claiming living expenses from the funds raised for the purpose of him bringing this action, when he is doing it as a more than full time job, seems completely reasonable to me. You could argue that judo lessons are a bit outside normal living expenses but that seems a trivial point.

coopster_the_1st

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

https://order-order.com/2019/06/07/private-prosecution-boris-thrown-high-court/

Update on Boris private prosection.

I didn't know the definition: "Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary."

It seems there is no legal remedy if your political opponent just lies. That could be a good or bad thing.

The court took 5 minutes to quash the previous judges decision. At least Marcus Ball got some nice accommodation and a few judo lessons out if it.

I'd have more time for your argument if you actually said what you thought was wrong with the case rather than just bitching about expenses.

I think this has been discussed at length previously in this thread. I thought it was a politically motivated action designed to thwart Brexit. I've already stated that I don't like Boris Johnson and don't think him a fit and proper person to be PM

Fair enough, but why bring it up again. I agree it's a politically motivated action, but the fact that the person bringing the action spent some of his crowdfunding on living expenses (and has been quite open about it) is irrelevant to the merits of the action.

I only mentioned it because I got absolutely anhialated for suggesting it was a politically motivated action. The expenses thing was open to interpretation. If you believed in his cause you may have thought it was reasonable, if like me you thought his action was nothing to do with altruism and making politics honest but just a vexatious action to try and thwart Brexit then it looked like he was taking the p1ss

I wouldn't worry about it. It was obvious that it was not going to get anywhere and you were correct about the motivation.

What makes me smile is that plenty of remoaner mugs would have donated to this

awavey

Shortfall wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

https://order-order.com/2019/06/07/private-prosecution-boris-thrown-high-court/

Update on Boris private prosection.

I didn't know the definition: "Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary."

It seems there is no legal remedy if your political opponent just lies. That could be a good or bad thing.

The court took 5 minutes to quash the previous judges decision. At least Marcus Ball got some nice accommodation and a few judo lessons out if it.

I thought the previous judges decision was simply the action deserved to be heard in court, it didnt pass judgement on the validity of the action

robert88

awavey wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

https://order-order.com/2019/06/07/private-prosecution-boris-thrown-high-court/

Update on Boris private prosection.

I didn't know the definition: "Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary."

It seems there is no legal remedy if your political opponent just lies. That could be a good or bad thing.

The court took 5 minutes to quash the previous judges decision. At least Marcus Ball got some nice accommodation and a few judo lessons out if it.

I thought the previous judges decision was simply the action deserved to be heard in court, it didnt pass judgement on the validity of the action

Yes, as Trump would say "I have been fully exonerated. THERE WAS NO BUS. FAKE NEWS, WITCH HUNT. Lock Him Up."

Anyway, as it is, May will soon be relegated to only the second or even third worst PM that Britain has ever had. It seems to be a single-party contest!

rick_chasey

So Gove is pro being tougher on class A drug use according to how he votes but is chill about being on the front page of the mail for taking coke.

No one even bats an eyelid.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

No one even bats an eyelid.

We are all pretty much sick to the back teeth of them. All of them.
#sadstateofaffairs

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

So Gove is pro being tougher on class A drug use according to how he votes but is chill about being on the front page of the mail for taking coke.

No one even bats an eyelid.

Arguably if someone with personal experience of the drug thinks that we should be tougher on class A drug use then maybe we should listen and take their advice.

Although, you would think if he was going to make that arguement he'd be a bit more forthcoming about his usage.

Still I imagine in a few years time we'll have MPs saying similar things about regretting a bit of mdma at university.

rick_chasey

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So Gove is pro being tougher on class A drug use according to how he votes but is chill about being on the front page of the mail for taking coke.

No one even bats an eyelid.

Arguably if someone with personal experience of the drug thinks that we should be tougher on class A drug use then maybe we should listen and take their advice.

Although, you would think if he was going to make that arguement he'd be a bit more forthcoming about his usage.

Still I imagine in a few years time we'll have MPs saying similar things about regretting a bit of mdma at university.

Throw the f@cking book at him. Rozzers ought to stop him in the street and search him for drugs.

See how he f@cking likes it the hypocritical prick.

Raid his house while he’s at it since he has the means to distribute.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So Gove is pro being tougher on class A drug use according to how he votes but is chill about being on the front page of the mail for taking coke.

No one even bats an eyelid.

Arguably if someone with personal experience of the drug thinks that we should be tougher on class A drug use then maybe we should listen and take their advice.

Although, you would think if he was going to make that arguement he'd be a bit more forthcoming about his usage.

Still I imagine in a few years time we'll have MPs saying similar things about regretting a bit of mdma at university.

Throw the f@cking book at him. Rozzers ought to stop him in the street and search him for drugs.

See how he f@cking likes it the hypocritical prick.

Raid his house while he’s at it since he has the means to distribute.

Are people not allowed to reflect on past actions and change their minds?

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So Gove is pro being tougher on class A drug use according to how he votes but is chill about being on the front page of the mail for taking coke.

No one even bats an eyelid.

Arguably if someone with personal experience of the drug thinks that we should be tougher on class A drug use then maybe we should listen and take their advice.

Although, you would think if he was going to make that arguement he'd be a bit more forthcoming about his usage.

Still I imagine in a few years time we'll have MPs saying similar things about regretting a bit of mdma at university.

Throw the f@cking book at him. Rozzers ought to stop him in the street and search him for drugs.

See how he f@cking likes it the hypocritical prick.

Raid his house while he’s at it since he has the means to distribute.

Are people not allowed to reflect on past actions and change their minds?

Not when they make possessing cocaine a prisonable offence in this context.

The demonising and imprisoning of searches of young men for minor drug offences is held in sharp relief when posh boys admit to it to get an edge in a leadership election.

He ought to know what it’s really like.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So Gove is pro being tougher on class A drug use according to how he votes but is chill about being on the front page of the mail for taking coke.

No one even bats an eyelid.

Arguably if someone with personal experience of the drug thinks that we should be tougher on class A drug use then maybe we should listen and take their advice.

Although, you would think if he was going to make that arguement he'd be a bit more forthcoming about his usage.

Still I imagine in a few years time we'll have MPs saying similar things about regretting a bit of mdma at university.

Throw the f@cking book at him. Rozzers ought to stop him in the street and search him for drugs.

See how he f@cking likes it the hypocritical prick.

Raid his house while he’s at it since he has the means to distribute.

Are people not allowed to reflect on past actions and change their minds?

Not when they make possessing cocaine a prisonable offence in this context.

The demonising and imprisoning of searches of young men for minor drug offences is held in sharp relief when posh boys admit to it to get an edge in a leadership election.

He ought to know what it’s really like.

What what is really like? Posh or not, anyone who uses cocaine is participating in organised crime. That might sound a bit hysterical, but what else would you call it? Everyone knows where it comes from. It's not fair-trade organic, grown by farmers' cooperatives, is it? By all means let's argue about how equally the law is applied, but the idea that users are not part of the problem is misguided, I think.

As for Gove, he's just spiking the story so it can't be used against him.

rick_chasey

What being harassed by the police for minor drug use is like, since he is such an advocate of it

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So Gove is pro being tougher on class A drug use according to how he votes but is chill about being on the front page of the mail for taking coke.

No one even bats an eyelid.

Arguably if someone with personal experience of the drug thinks that we should be tougher on class A drug use then maybe we should listen and take their advice.

Although, you would think if he was going to make that arguement he'd be a bit more forthcoming about his usage.

Still I imagine in a few years time we'll have MPs saying similar things about regretting a bit of mdma at university.

Throw the f@cking book at him. Rozzers ought to stop him in the street and search him for drugs.

See how he f@cking likes it the hypocritical prick.

Raid his house while he’s at it since he has the means to distribute.

Are people not allowed to reflect on past actions and change their minds?

Not if they're Tories, it would seem.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So Gove is pro being tougher on class A drug use according to how he votes but is chill about being on the front page of the mail for taking coke.

No one even bats an eyelid.

Arguably if someone with personal experience of the drug thinks that we should be tougher on class A drug use then maybe we should listen and take their advice.

Although, you would think if he was going to make that arguement he'd be a bit more forthcoming about his usage.

Still I imagine in a few years time we'll have MPs saying similar things about regretting a bit of mdma at university.

Throw the f@cking book at him. Rozzers ought to stop him in the street and search him for drugs.

See how he f@cking likes it the hypocritical prick.

Raid his house while he’s at it since he has the means to distribute.

Are people not allowed to reflect on past actions and change their minds?

Not if they're Tories, it would seem.

It’s unfortunate the laws he helps past don’t allow for that either

rick_chasey

Let’s be clear here, had he been caught in possession he’d have lost his career.

So either he stands by his own convictions (pun intended) and resigns from his career or he accepts his politics on drug use are misguided and unfair, both in principal and application.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

What being harassed by the police for minor drug use is like, since he is such an advocate of it

Either one is in possession of class A drugs or one isn't. If you are repeatedly searched and never found to be in possession then that would be harassment. But you are suggesting some were found on more than one occasion.

Unequal application of searches is a separate issue from government drugs policy .

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Let’s be clear here, had he been caught in possession he’d have lost his career.

So either he stands by his own convictions (pun intended) and resigns from his career or he accepts his politics on drug use are misguided and unfair, both in principal and application.

One MP being inconsistent over a period of 20 years is not a sound argument to change the drug laws. He didn't write and pass them on his own.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What being harassed by the police for minor drug use is like, since he is such an advocate of it

Either one is in possession of class A drugs or one isn't. If you are repeatedly searched and never found to be in possession then that would be harassment. But you are suggesting some were found on more than one occasion.

People like Gove don’t run the risk of being caught in possession as they are never stopped and searched.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Let’s be clear here, had he been caught in possession he’d have lost his career.

So either he stands by his own convictions (pun intended) and resigns from his career or he accepts his politics on drug use are misguided and unfair, both in principal and application.

According to your lot it shouldn't be an offence, so what are you moaning about?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liberal-democrats-drug-decriminalisation-personal-a7637161.html

rick_chasey

It’s always the same.

I know someone who is a good mate of this guy, who was present when he started walking down kings road pointing his fake shotgun at people: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... -jail.html

Of course, he walks free. Boys will be boys.

I suspect had he not been in Chelsea and said “maaaaaate” all the time whilst catching glints from his family pinky ring, and instead been on an undesirable estate he wouldn’t have.

As joke or not he’s pointing a gun people think is real in people’s faces.




The double standards in law enforcement is a f@cking disgrace and people like Gove are part of the problem.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Let’s be clear here, had he been caught in possession he’d have lost his career.

So either he stands by his own convictions (pun intended) and resigns from his career or he accepts his politics on drug use are misguided and unfair, both in principal and application.

According to your lot it shouldn't be an offence, so what are you moaning about?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liberal-democrats-drug-decriminalisation-personal-a7637161.html

Understand what I wrote better.

I’ve highlighted the relevant bit to help.

If he believes in the criminalisation of drugs he ought to practice what he preaches. Ooooooor he should rethink it.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

It’s always the same.

I know someone who is a good mate of this guy, who was present when he started walking down kings road pointing his fake shotgun at people: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... -jail.html

Of course, he walks free. Boys will be boys.

I suspect had he not been in Chelsea and said “maaaaaate” all the time whilst catching glints from his family pinky ring, and instead been on an undesirable estate he wouldn’t have.

As joke or not he’s pointing a gun people think is real in people’s faces.




The double standards in law enforcement is a f@cking disgrace and people like Gove are part of the problem.

Whataboutery. You're being a hypocrite if you are insisting that he resigns over something you believe should not be an offence. Unless you think the Lib Dem policy on personal drug use is a load of bollox?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It’s always the same.

I know someone who is a good mate of this guy, who was present when he started walking down kings road pointing his fake shotgun at people: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... -jail.html

Of course, he walks free. Boys will be boys.

I suspect had he not been in Chelsea and said “maaaaaate” all the time whilst catching glints from his family pinky ring, and instead been on an undesirable estate he wouldn’t have.

As joke or not he’s pointing a gun people think is real in people’s faces.




The double standards in law enforcement is a f@cking disgrace and people like Gove are part of the problem.

Whataboutery. You're being a hypocrite if you are insisting that he resigns over something you believe should not be an offence. Unless you think the Lib Dem policy on personal drug use is a load of bollox?

You don’t understand.

If *he* thinks it should be offence *he* should resign.

If *he* doesn’t think it should be offence *he* ought to help change the law.

Is that clearer?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Let’s be clear here, had he been caught in possession he’d have lost his career.

So either he stands by his own convictions (pun intended) and resigns from his career or he accepts his politics on drug use are misguided and unfair, both in principal and application.

According to your lot it shouldn't be an offence, so what are you moaning about?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liberal-democrats-drug-decriminalisation-personal-a7637161.html

Understand what I wrote better.

I’ve highlighted the relevant bit to help.

If he believes in the criminalisation of drugs he ought to practice what he preaches. Ooooooor he should rethink it.

Dont be patronsising Rick, I understand the point above very well thank you. I'm more interested in your hypoctical stance on this.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It’s always the same.

I know someone who is a good mate of this guy, who was present when he started walking down kings road pointing his fake shotgun at people: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... -jail.html

Of course, he walks free. Boys will be boys.

I suspect had he not been in Chelsea and said “maaaaaate” all the time whilst catching glints from his family pinky ring, and instead been on an undesirable estate he wouldn’t have.

As joke or not he’s pointing a gun people think is real in people’s faces.




The double standards in law enforcement is a f@cking disgrace and people like Gove are part of the problem.

Whataboutery. You're being a hypocrite if you are insisting that he resigns over something you believe should not be an offence. Unless you think the Lib Dem policy on personal drug use is a load of bollox?

You don’t understand.

If *he* thinks it should be offence *he* should resign.

If *he* doesn’t think it should be offence *he* ought to help change the law.

Is that clearer?

Stop kidding yourself that I don't understand. Intellectual snobbery doesn't work well if you're not that bright yourself.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

:?: 8

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Let’s be clear here, had he been caught in possession he’d have lost his career.

So either he stands by his own convictions (pun intended) and resigns from his career or he accepts his politics on drug use are misguided and unfair, both in principal and application.

According to your lot it shouldn't be an offence, so what are you moaning about?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liberal-democrats-drug-decriminalisation-personal-a7637161.html

Understand what I wrote better.

I’ve highlighted the relevant bit to help.

If he believes in the criminalisation of drugs he ought to practice what he preaches. Ooooooor he should rethink it.

Dont be patronsising Rick, I understand the point above very well thank you. I'm more interested in your hypoctical stance on this.

OK. I will spell it out for you.

If you are a politician who believes using cocaine is something that is against the law, you must surely abide by your own beliefs and apply them as fairly to yourself as you would others?

If he is willing to have others fall in trouble with the law for cocaine, why is he not willing to accept he should too?

I would be more sympathetic to him if he used cocaine and decided that it ought not to blot his career and figured that that same logic be applied to everyone else too. But he does the opposite. He thinks the rules don’t apply to him.

I am calling him out for not applying his own views on cocaine users on himself.

I’d be happy for him to help legalise drugs but since he passes laws to further criminalise it he ought to apply that to himself

Pross

I quite like rjs image of locally sourced coke grown by a co-operative. Ideally it would be sold on an honesty box system. They'd love that in places like Stroud and Totnes.